May 04, 2006
5/4: Justice Delayed
The life sentence for federal prisoner Zacarias Moussaoui dominates the blogosphere 5/4. The Blogometer will cover reax later today on our web edition. For now, though, we've got our hands full with OH primary thoughts, DCCC strategy, possible Sen. hearings on WH misbehavior, WH'08, and another blogger spotlight.
Bloggers were not terribly surprised by the OH primary results. Myelectionanalysis: "I wish I could say there was some big shocker in the primaries yesterday to report, but everything pretty much went as planned. In OH-06, Wilson made the ballot, setting up a competitive race in a swing district. Ultimately I expect that Wilson will win this quite handily given the type of year this is shaking up to be for Republicans, but time will tell."
Lefty MyDD also thought Wilson's win was the big news: "By being forced into a contested, competitive primary, Charlie Wilson was forced to significantly upgrade the quality of what to that point had been an extremely lazy campaign. Now, Democratic chances to hold the OH-06 have improved significantly. I hope this is the lesson the DCCC and others take from yesterday, rather than just looking at this election and seeing a big waste of resources."
Also on the left, Swing State Project has a seat by seat run down including:
OH-02 (Incumbent, GOPer Jean Schmidt): Wow did Jean Schmidt ever eke out a narrow win - just 48-42 over Bob McEwen. I wonder if he's cursing the two also-ran candidates, considering that Schmidt didn't even crack 50%. In a way, this may be the best possible outcome for us. Though OH-02 is hardly a competitive seat, we still face the most pathetic possible candidate (Schmidt) who's been embarrassingly weakened in her primary.
OH-16 (Incumbent, GOPer Ralph Regula): Wow, I didn't even know Ralph "Malph" Regula was on the receiving end of a serious primary challenge - he eked out a 58-42 win. That's pretty shabby for a zillion-year incumbent, and it lends further credence to the notion that we can definitely pick up this seat - if not now, then when Regula retires at the end of the next term. (Recall this poll.) Pastor Tom Shaw won the Dem nod in a very narrow race (51-49), though I can't say I'm enthused about the fact that his website is still "under construction."
OH-18 (Incumbent, GOPer Bob Ney): Big upset. Netroots-backed Zack Space beats Fighting Dem Joe Sulzer quite handily, 39-24. What's more, Sulzer actually finished in third place, behind a candidate I'd never even heard of, Jennifer Stewart. On the GOP side, Bob Ney won 68-32. Most observers expect him to pull a DeLay and drop out post-primary so that the GOP elders can annoint his replacement.
Righty, and actual Buckeye, Brad Smith at RedState has another seat by seat round up and a different take on Ney:
18th District: This is Bob Ney's seat. Ney has had scandal problems, of course, and this has never been a heavily Republican district, though Ney has held it with some ease for the last decade. In a tough primary, the Democrats chose Zach Space, Law Director for the City of Dover. Space is an attractive candidate for the District, and will be a difficult opponent for Ney. Some have noted that Ney got just 68% in the GOP primary, not strong for an incumbent. I live just outside the borders of the 18th, and get most of my local news from the district's largest city, Newark. My own sense is that Ney will be OK, barring some major, adverse legal verdict - which seems less likely now, as the statute of limitations has passed on the most probable charge against him. It is noted in the Post link above that internal GOP polling looks bad, but I'm seeing much that suggests to me that Ney is in trouble. He has been working hard, and is a good fit for the district. And not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a not the type of district where voters put a lot of stock into so-called "good government" process issues. Voters here want an effective congressman who represents their views, and they are likely to view unproven, unindicted (let alone convicted) claims of "ethics" problems as mere politics as usual. This will be a battle, using up valuable resources, but at this point I see Ney holding on.
Some lefties were not pleased with their parties choices a Swing State Project commenter writes: "Whither the Fighting Dems? Sulzer goes down in the primary, Dunn and Hackett don't even make it to Primary Day... have any of our Fighting Dems won a primary this cycle? Seems like they got a lot of press for not much of an impact." Lefty Buckeye State Blog missed Hackett but found enough other candidates to like: "Yeah I am pissed Hackett was shoved out of the race. I'll be even more pissed when Brown loses to DeWine.
But where I have the most excitement is in people like Bob Shamansky, Stephanie Studebaker, STJ, Tim Ryan, Zack Space, Richard Sieferd in fact almost all the congressional candidates. These people I believe do represent me and the majority of my positions and they are fighters, win or lose. I can dig that."
OHIO II: State Of The State
Righties are very excited about Sec/State Ken Blackwell (R) chances in 11/06. Let Freedom Ring: "Ken Blackwell is the Democrats' worst nightmare -- a true black conservative who's won statewide races before. The last I'd heard, Mr. Blackwell was pulling 40% of the black vote in Ohio. The polls show Strickland with a 10-point lead on Blackwell but I don't think that'll last long. Most of that lead is attributed to Gov. Taft's ethical challenges. That won't be the focus this fall, though. That campaign will be on the future and who's the best person to lead Ohio forward. Ted Strickland isn't that person. He's too liberal and he wants to raise taxes. A tax increase, along with his ethics problems, is what caused Gov. Taft's JA ratings to plummet."
Hugh Hewitt is also a big Blackwell fan, but is more cautious: "He will be an underdog in the fight for the governorship, and big labor and MSM will be with standard issue liberal Ted Strickland from tomorrow morning forward. But Blackwell is a charming, smart, tireless and happy campaigner, and he won't let up for a second. He isn't tied to the Taft Adminsitration, and represents a fresh face and approach for the Buckeye State. Every would-be GOP presidential candidate will work the state for him, as of course will President Bush, Vice President Cheney and just about every other Republican who can draw three people to an event."
Buckeye righty Brad Smith at RedState thinks the OH GOP hasn't done Blackwell any favors:
Brad then goes on to handicap the race:It is hard to grasp just how unpopular Governor Bob Taft has become. His approval ratings have hovered in the low teens for months, sometimes dropping into uncharted territory - a late November Zogby poll had him at 6.5% approval. ... Eight years ago, Ohio Republicans chose Taft as their gubernatorial nominee over Ken Blackwell. At the time, I thought this foolish. Having a conservative African-American as the governor of a major industrial state, speaking out in favor of school choice and low taxes, would have been a sight to see. But it was Taft's turn, you see, so Blackwell had to bide his time as Secretary of State. By 2006, I noted at the time, the GOP nomination might not be worth having - 16 years is a long time for one party to control the governor's mansion. And that's exactly where we are today.
Blackwell's immediate problem is to consolidate the GOP base, however. Eight years ago, the Ohio GOP's urban establishment worried that rural GOP voters would, in the end, not pull the lever for a black gubernatorial nominee. This contempt for their own party's voters was always misplaced, and oddly enough, Blackwell's strength is now in those very same rural counties. Blackwell's other problem may be appealing to independent voters, who have read little but a steady diet of anti-Blackwell propaganda since the 2004 election. One asset in appealing to independents may be the support of John McCain - if McCain, who endorsed Blackwell in the primary, is prepared to spend political capital on Blackwell's behalf.
Myelectionanalysis doesn't think anyone is happy with their Sen. candidates: "In the statewide races, voters in both parties seemed to be somewhat holding their noses to vote. ... On the Senate side, Senator Mike DeWine lost almost a third of the vote to a couple of nobodies, while Sherrod Brown lost 21% to Merrill Keiser (As Politics1 likes to say, he's never heard of you either). Interestingly, turnout was higher in the Republican primary than the Dem primary. Whether that signals spillover from the hotly-contested gubernatorial race, or people rushing to vote against DeWine, or a Republican base that is, in fact, more energized than previously thought is difficult to determine at this point." Lefty The PEG Pundit agrees: "DeWine isn't a bad guy, but is taking a hit because other prominent Ohio Republicans turned out to be corrupt bastards. Brown is vulnerable because of the sleazy way Paul Hackett was forced out of the race. There is plenty of mud available, and I expect to see it being flung in a very expensive manner."
Lefty Redhawk Review notes that turnout was low and then admits: "I do not understand the Ohio conservative voter. Take a look at the two biggest winners on the GOP side last night: Blackwell and DeWine. Could there be two more starkly opposed candidates for major office coming out of the same party. Blackwell is about as far right as conservatives get -- or at least he claims to be. ... Then you have DeWine, who as a fellow Redhawk gets a bit of a pass here, but I think even he would label himself as the epitome of a moderate. Yet Ohioans placed them both on November's ballot with overwhelming support."
Righty Buckeye BizzyBlog is not happy about the state of the OH GOP and has a long list of lessons learned from the primaries:
That the "Christian Right" can be taken in by clever messengers who say the right things and are successful at not revealing their true selves. Yes, that makes me hesitant to jump up and down for joy about Ken Blackwell, because I believe his close alignment with the Ohio Restoration Project is causing an ugly strain of condescension...
That the state GOP cares more about protecting its incumbents than the party's principles, and will do anything on behalf of the former even if it sells out most of the latter.
That there is widespread discontent with the establishments of both parties. Two candidates with little money took about 29% 28.2% of the vote from Senate incumbent Mike Dewine. One candidate probably would have taken about 10% more, but voters who had never heard of Bill Pierce or David Smith most likely decided to stay with the devil they knew once they saw two alternatives instead of one. On the Democrat side, Merrill Keiser took an astounding 23% or so 22% from Sherrod Brown.
That the establishments of both parties don't care about that widespread discontent, and seem to be doing everything they can to discourage their principled members. On the left, we had the betrayal of Paul Hackett by the Washington Democrat establishment, and on the right we have the stubborn clinging to failed Taft-era thinking.
Of course it wouldn't be an election in OH without voting problems. Lefty MyDD highlights problems at two precincts and Lefty The Naked Truth thinks it is time to start firing people.
ELECTION '06: North By Northeast
Big lefty bloggers are all happy with the New York Times 5/3 item on Dem plans to target House GOP seats in the Northeast. The Democratic Daily writes, "Let's turn the Northeast a deeper shade of blue." Working Families Party Man is also pleased: "I don't agree with Rahm Emanuel on everything. Especially with what he did in IL with the whole Tammy Duckworth and Christine Cegelis thing. But I do agree with him on the fact that the Northeast is the place to be in 2006. I find it funny that we here in the Northeast can take back the House from the Republicans who have relied on the South and the Mid-West."
Lefty SusanG at DailyKos notes that the president is wildly unpopular in the region and therefore Dem victories should be easy to come by: "Perhaps I'm being simple-minded, but I'm not quite getting why it's so difficult to tie individual Republican candidates to the immediate local impact of Bush's policies. We are talking, after all, about a party whose lock-stepped and fabled unity strikes fear in the hearts of every Democratic operative. ...Am I missing something? Is it really all that difficult to tie lockstepped, enabling Republicans to this daily-more-unpopular president? Or do I have to be an overpaid Democratic consultant before I can understand why this won't work?"
Lefty Swing State Project likes the attention from the Times but also thinks they chose the wrong race to highlight: "The Times showcases the race in CT-05 between Chris Murphy and incumbent Nancy Johnson. I do think their read on the race's importance in the larger overall scheme of things is wrong, though: The 5th CD, as you know, is the least Dem of all three GOP-held seats in CT. It would be entirely plausible for us to win back the House without beating Johnson. Don't get me wrong: I think Murphy's got a shot, despite the big cash disadvantage, thanks to the favorable external factors which inform this race. But the national outcome is not predicated on the outcome here."
RCP Blog isn't buying any of it: "The Times article is equally flawed in that it features Connecticut 5 and New Hampshire 2 as two of the "races to watch." That may be what Rahm Emanuel is telling Hernandez and what he wants people to believe, but no one seriously thinks that Charlie Bass or Nancy Johnson are in trouble right now - or that the Dems necessarily need these seats to win control of the House. ...While the New York Times seems content to play along with the DCCC's spin that a bunch of Northeastern seats are in play, right now that's not the reality. Rob Simmons is vulnerable in CT-2, Chris Shays to a little bit lesser degree in CT-4, and Boehlert's open seat (NY-24) is also a very legitimate pick-up opportunity for the Dems. Beyond that, however, the pickings in the Northeast get slim pretty fast - as they do elsewhere around the country once you get beyond the handful of Republican seats that are seriously in play."
BUSH: On Closer InSpectertion ...
Lefty bloggers are cautiously optimistic about news that Senate Judiciary Cmte Chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) plans to hold June hearings on WH "blatant encroachment" on cong. authority.
Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory plays it as a civics lesson: "We are treated today to a small though vivid illustration of how our democracy is supposed to work. To recap: a Republican Senator is vowing to hold hearings because the President of the United States has embraced theories which maintain that he has the right to break the law and has, consistent with those theories, been breaking the law repeatedly and deliberately. Maybe some journalists other than Savage and The Boston Globe could tell their readers about that extremely significant fact." TalkLeft also thinks the system is beginning to work: "Arlen Specter seems to have rediscovered one of the central tasks of the legislature: to act as a check against the executive by exercising oversight of presidential power."
Many lefties are not ready to trust Specter's word or doubt he will take any real action. The Carpetbagger Report: "Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?" That's a good question. I can only hope Specter is sincere in asking it. He has a habit of talking tough, but failing to follow through. We'll see what happens here." The Democratic Daily: "How this will play out in the hearing slated for June remains to be seen." A commenter at Think Progress: "What Specter says and what Specter does are two entirely different things." Mahablog: "Even if the Senate finds Bush really has exceeding his authority, there is little they can do about it beyond refusing to fund programs - or impeachment."
Righties either took shots at Specter or thought the President would sail through the hearings. Riehl World View: "Though you might not know it if you aren't from New Jersey, you never trust a politician from Philadelphia, especially one with a bad hair piece. They have a way of coming up with all sorts of crazy ideas." Hugh Hewitt: "Any fair assembling of legal scholars will provide a robust defense of the NSA program as it exists as well as of other presidential powers."
McCAIN: He's A Soul Man
The MSM may be full of for love Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), but little can be found for him in the blogosphere. A David Ignatiusop-ed titled "A Man Who Won't Sell His Soul" has everyone talking.
Lefty Greg Sargent at TAPPED is tired of pro-McCain MSM articles: "How many times does McCain have to flip-flop or betray stated principles before columnists like Ignatius will stop saying that McCain is averse to future expediency and start pointing out that he actually is being expedient in real time? We'll find out the answer to that question eventually -- or maybe we won't -- but for now, one thing is clear. Columnists like Ignatius are all too happy to conflate a candidate's demeanor with his ideology and substantive record -- and often in a way that works for Republicans and against Dems."
Lefty Mark Schmitt at TPMCafe thinks the MSM lovefest has to end eventually: "But that's a double-edged sword in a presidential campaign. As soon as you hit the campaign trail, the reporters aren't middle-aged guys who want to hang out with you. They're 25-year-olds looking to make their mark, and they don't do it by liking a guy. The McCain cult in the press is weird, but it won't actually save him."
Lefty Boooman Tribune isn't buying McCain as populist: "Americans have seen Iraq and they've seen Katrina. And they are moving to the left. Anyone that can hold the line and keep a populist like Feingold from rising to the top is now a hero. McCain is a bulwark against the coming and much needed backlash. Ignatius is carrying his water. McCain, in turn, will be carrying the whole beltway's water in 2008...along with Hillary." And AMERICAblog is also done with any McCain flirtation: "Any McCain envy is now officially over. The man is a conservative Republican and he admits it freely. It's over, folks. You want four more years of tax cuts, real wars, culture wars, and deficit spending, vote for John McCain."
Righty Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED doesn't think Ignatius thought through his McCain as centrist thesis: "So on one extreme, you have people who think the war was a bad idea. On the other extreme, you have people who think the war was a good idea. And "bridging" the extremes is McCain, who thinks the war's such a great idea we should have poured more resources down the toilet."
Righty Confederate Yankee thinks McCain is "one of the most calculating, cynical, triangulating Senators in office, and one who made the frightening admission just last week that he won't let a little thing like the Constitution get in his way."
Analyst RCP Blog thinks McCain ought to choose his words better: "This doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that's going to help John McCain: "I don't want it that badly," McCain says. "I will continue to do what is right. I will continue to pursue torture, climate change. If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil." Take off the last three words and the quote isn't very newsworthy. But by adding the phrase "to the devil," McCain gives off the impression he has to capitulate to evil to win the Republican nomination. That sort of statement will get an "amen" from Howard Dean and the left, but it's going to offend some Republicans and remind them of McCain's voluminous arrogance"
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Ranting in Carolina
Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Cori Dauber, who writes Rantingprofs.
What is your full name?
Cori E. Dauber
What is your age?
45
Where did you grow up?
New York City
Where do you live now?
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
College professor (I'm Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Research Fellow at the Triangle Institute for Security Studies)
When did you start blogging and why?
About 3 years ago, out of frustration that I couldn't get op-ed pieces placed (perhaps because everything I wrote was a critique of media performance!) But I quickly realized this medium was far better for what I wanted to accomplish: my critique comes out immediately after the material I'm referring to, and if what I have to say really requires only 50 words, or requires a full 2,000, the blog lets me do that, rather than attempting to shoehorn every argument into 650-750 words.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I think a story that was brought to my attention by a reader, about a unit that had been accused of recklessly causing civilian casualties in Iraq. Those accusations had been covered by the Times, in some detail, but the fact that an intensive investigation had cleared the unit was mentioned in the middle of a story on something else, in such a way that even if you were looking for it you'd never find it.That ultimately got mentioned by their Public Editor at the time, Daniel Okrent, although certainly not simply because of my writing. (This is the original post,and this is the one regarding Okrent's response, )
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I get up fairly early, and blog as I work my way through first the Post and then the Times, plus a few online sites. On days when I'm not teaching I tend to at least be checking in with cable news during the day, and I'll post if anything strikes me while I watch. I surf back and forth between the 3 networks in the evening and, again, I'll post if something catches my eye there. Generally I check Memeorandum several times a day, and often something will catch my eye from there.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Mickey Kaus
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Easily David Ignatius because he's doing as much or more original reporting as most "straight" news reporters.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
This may sound odd, but Imus in the Morning (it's simulcast on MSNBC.) I surf back and forth constantly for comparison purposes, and I am repeatedly struck that NBC's stable of first rate reporters, particularly their foreign reporters, will often either not be on the Today Show, which instead will offer a rapid-fire reading of headlines in lieu of news, or will be given ninety-seconds to two minutes there, and then will turn around and appear on Imus seconds later for longer interviews than you hear anywhere on commercial television. (Not to mention that he gets reporters to say things about assumptions and practice you'll never hear on the air anywhere else.)
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
washingtonpost.com -- it's the gold standard of newspaper websites, although I'm still bitter you can't get home delivery of the Post here.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Memeorandum, and Instapundit, both for the same reason: they're excellent portal blogs.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I read the Times every day.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
"New media" seems to be doing more original reporting, but it seems to me it will always depend on "old media." "Old media," meanwhile, at some point is going to have to come to grips with the idea that not every blogger is crazyguyinabasement.com, but that many are blogging in the area of their own expertise, and that many have useful insights even if their writing comes out of explicit points of view. But from what I've seen, "old" media's interest in the "new" seems mainly restricted to the possibilities opened up by the platforms, and less in the critiques offered by those non-professionals who began using those platforms as a way of gaining some kind of voice for their critiques of the professional media.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When It Rains It Pours?
Swing State Project asks, "What I wanted to know is, when the party in power loses seats in Congress, how bad do those losses tend to be?" Looking at the past 45 elections he finds:
"The party in power ("PIP") in the House lost seats 25 times and gained seats 20 times. In the Senate, the PIP lost seats 26 times, gained seats 17 times, and remained unchanged twice. Those sets of numbers are pretty similar: In the House, 55.6% of the time, the PIP loses seats, while in the Senate, it's 57.8% of the time. ...But here is where they are rather different: The median seat loss in the Senate (during losing years) is six. The median seat loss in the House, meanwhile, is 20. ...In other words, the Senate might change hands more often, but the delta of those changes is a lot less volatile than in the House."
LEST WE FORGET: Cheney's Got A Gun, Cont.
Tons of funny (and non-funny) clips over at the Hotline's newest feature Web AD-dict. Be sure to check at The Huffington Post's "Cheney Soundtrack."
MOUSSAOUI: Cool Hand Zac
The Moussaoui verdict has brought out the core differences in how the right and left want to prosecute the war on terror. For the most part righties believe we are at war and people like Moussaoui ought to be treated like Nazi sabateours. Meanwhile lefties would rather all terrorists were treated as criminals and faced justice through American courts.
Righties unhappy with the verdict include:
Gateway Pundit: "Moussaoui gets Life because the jury thought he was treated badly as a child. I know a lot of people who had rough childhoods who don't slaughter thousands of innocent Americans."
Rhymes With Right: "Where Is Our Generation's Jack Ruby? ...I am angry almost beyond words."
Stop The ACLU: "I was hoping they were gonna fry this creep. Let it be known, I do not think that justice was served here. I don’t even think he should have had a trial. This ruling really is an outrage!"
Outside the Beltway: "Incredible. If Moussaoui doesn’t deserve to die for his crimes, almost no one currently on death row does. Those who argue that the current system of capital punishment is arbitrary and capricious have much more ammunition now."
Sundires Shack: "So, thanks to this jury, you and I will be paying to house, feed, and care for a man who will live his entire life working as best he can to kill us. I’d be willing to bet that in very short order, Moussaoui will be in contact with the terrorist network that exists in our prison system and there is a very real chance that he will be involved in more murders."
Protein Wisdom: "I mean, sure, some folks are going to argue that killing him would have turned him into the martyr he desired being. To which I say, so what? He’d also be dead. Which should be the fate of those who conspired to attack us on 911."
Roger Simon: "Even though I am almost always opposed to the death penalty, I cannot say I am pleased Zacarias Moussaoui has been given a life sentence. ...I do know the wannabe 9-11 murderer is infected by a virulent mental disorder that tells him mass terror actions and assaults on innocent people merit a place in paradise. As we all have seen, this particular mental disorder - Islamism - is highly communicable and results in megadeath. So Moussaoui must not be allowed to interact with his fellow prisoners in any way lest they be released after he has infected them with his homicidal mind-cult."
The Jawa Report: "Fuzzy logic alert from friends and readers. So, you're happy that Moussaoui got life in prison because killing him would have made him a martyr? That does make a kind of superficial sense, but think about it. By that logic, no jihadi should ever be killed!"
Some righties thought the jury did the right thing:
QandO: "This is being touted by some media outlets as a 'stinging rebuke' (as I heard it described on radio news yesterday) of the Federal government's desire. Maybe I'm missing something but life in a super maximum security federal prison instead of death seems like more of a Pyrric victory for the defense than any "stinging rebuke" for the prosecution."
Feministe: "Life in solitary is no picnic. And regardless of how you fall on the issue of the death penalty, I would think that it would give you pause to think that imposing the death penalty would make this guy into a martyr for the cause and possibly inspire others to follow in his footsteps."
***BLOGOMETER ERROR***the Feminste group-site is better classified as lefty...not righty...we regret the error.***BLOGOMETER ERROR***
Right Wing Nut House: "I think the jury in the Zacarius Moussaoui case did a brave and noble thing by sparing the killer’s life. Their decision validates our justice system in a way that brings honor to our values and the system of justice that protects those values."
Donkey Stomp: "It should be noted that my one liberal viewpoint is that I am against the death penalty, even in this case. For those of you who are for the death penalty, try to look at it in this way: at least he won't be getting the martyrdom status he was probably hoping for."
Andrew Sullivan: "A vile human being. I oppose the death penalty, but if I had to make an exception, it would be him. The silver lining is that we do not make this monster a martyr. The rule of law was followed; our society allows even this murderous religious fanatic due process. In that sense, Moussaoui got this wrong as he has gotten everything else wrong. He lost. America won."
Righty PoliBlog thought the feds were stretching to begin with: "One of the things that has troubled me to some degree about this case is that I often got the feeling that because Moussaoui was all we had in terms of someone to prosecute for 911, then perhaps more had been vested in him specifically than may have been warranted by the evidence."
Captain's Quarters has a great take on why a death peanlty verdict would have been a huge headache:
The readers of this blog know that I oppose the death penalty, but this case came close to being an exception for me. Moussaoui's outburst aside, he lost in this process. He never counted on capture and trial as part of his work for AQ; he either wanted to die as a martyr in an attack on America, or get away with an attack with his life and freedom intact. He did neither. Had he received it, he would have been transformed into a global cause celebre, the new poster boy for American cruelty for our use of capital punishment. His appeals would have garnered headlines for years, and human rights groups would have lit candles and held vigils for him. In a few years, the US would have put him to death, accompanied by worldwide protests and endless publicity -- all focused on this one sociopathic misfit who would have achieved his greatest victory through this mastery of manipulation.
The French quickly made CQ look prophetic.
DLC sponsored Bull Moose thinks civiliian court was not the right forum: "The terrorist Moussaoui should have never been tried in a civilian court. That was the first injustice. It was a profound misunderstanding of the nature of our conflict with Jihadism that resulted in this case being considered in a non-military court. We are at war and Moussaoui is an enemy combatant. He was never entitled to the rights of an American citizen. Why was his childhood treatment relevant in this case? The only relevant matter was that he covertly infiltrated this country with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible."
On this issue, many righties shared the Moose's appraisal:
Riehl World View: "Ultimately, I might agree but can't say I'm surprised. The civilian courts were always a poor venue for the case. ...I'd point back to the Dana Priest prison story once again. One motivation behind the Left trying to attack the administration's detention policy is to try and get every terrorist rights in International or Federal Courts. The Washington Post and more than just the anti-death penalty crowd on the Left should be celebrating the Moussaoui verdict. In the end, it's their victory, after all."
Vodkapundit: "The one and only good thing to come out of this fiasco is that it reveals once again the pointlessness of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. It's not about crime. It's about war. Like the Nazi sabateours captured during World War II, Moussaoui should have been turned over to the military, tried by a tribunal, and executed."
Littlegreenfootballs: "My point is not so much that Moussaoui should have received the death penalty (although I don’t know if anyone in our country’s history has ever deserved it more), but that he never should have been allowed to exploit the criminal justice system, as he has done—and as he will now continue to do, for the rest of his life. He should have been tried as an enemy combatant."
Lefty response was muted and mixed. Wampum liked the verdict: "While I think that reasonable people can differ on the appropriate punishment for Zacarias Moussaoui, the jury decided on life imprisonment. They are the deciders and heard the evidence, which I did not, so I accept their judgment." Taylor Marsh did not: "As an aside, I'm completely inconsistent when it comes to the death penalty and al Qaeda. I'm against it for everyone else, but for it for people who want to rip our lives from us. When it comes to terrorists, it's just too much to ask that I be rational."
Some lefties couldn't resist a dig at the WH. Shakespeare's Sister: "I have no comment, really, except that it’s notable that in the biggest case related to the war on terrorism so far, the Justice Department failed to secure the death sentence they were seeking." Lawyers, Guns, and Money: "A death penalty case requires a level of professionalism that the state manifestly failed to meet here, and given Moussaoui's exceptionally tangential-at-best connections to 9/11 I can't say it's a tragedy."
Many lefties thought the whole trial was a farce:
TalkLeft: "One more thought. This is not a victory for America. Moussaoui had no role in 9/11. Cheering on al Qaeda and hoping they succeed -- and celebrating when they did -- does not make one a co-conspirator. The scorecard remains: Al Qaeda: 3,000 killed on 9/11. Number of responsible persons brought to justice: None."
Juliette Kayyem at TPMCafe: "Shame on the government, once again, for going forward with this sentencing hearing. Who was it for? Not the families? Not us? So they got one conviction (BASED ON A PLEA) of a very bad man who was willing to be sent away for life without this circus."
The Rude Pundit: "The fact that Moussaoui had about as much to do with 9/11 as a polar bear has to do with rising gas prices didn't seem to matter to prosecutors, who were determined that Moussaoui, being Muslim, crazy, brownish and bearded, would be the nutzoid canvas onto which the bloodlust of revenge fantasies would be painted. So, yeah, sure, this is the "first 9/11-related case" brought to trial only because they called it the "first 9/11-related case."
Unlike righties who prefer to see the Moussaouis of the world in military tribunals, lefties want all terrorists to be in civillian court.
Attywood: " In other words, the real scum who carried out 9/11 can't be tried because we tortured them and the Bush administration is now afraid of what would come out at a trial. So now the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 can't get the real justice that they want and deserve. Meanwhile, the Moussaoui trial may have been a side show, but it also served its purpose for the Bush administration by keeping 9/11 -- the falling bodies, the horrific fate and heroism of Flight 93 -- fresh in the public's mind, so it can be invoked anew in Iran and wherever else the voice of God steers Bush and his war machine in the coming months."
Booman Tribune: "I certainly have no inside knowledge on any of this ... some very bad people can't, or won't, be tried and convicted because any real trial with real lawyers, judges and jurors would expose some very illegal acts committed by our government, likely destroying the government's case. Nevertheless, this leaves those of us who care about such things, stuck in the often unenviable position of demanding that every human being, no matter how awful, be accorded every right guaranteed them under US and international law. But that gets to an important point; there is no evil, homicidal bastard exemption in the constitution. I'm likely a fool, but I still hold the belief that the most effective way to investigate, prosecute and detain criminals, even the really evil bastards, is to adhere to the letter of the law while doing so. Whatever.
Posted by Conn Carroll at May 4, 2006 12:31 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
